| Literature DB >> 32837054 |
Vanessa Silva1, Joana Silva1, Margarida Gonçalves1, Carlos Brandão1, Nuno Vieira E Brito2.
Abstract
The new legislative framework on Animal Welfare brought increased responsibilities to municipal shelters, in particular in the collection of stray dogs, their sterilization and future adoption. These centers quickly became overcrowded, leading to high parasitism environmental contamination, to the easy spread of parasitic infections and to increased risks to public health. The prevalence of intestinal parasites was evaluated by examination of dog faecal sample, in the municipal control animal centre of Guimarães (north Portugal), identifying risk factors and transmission to man. The overall prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths was 57.2% (95% confidence interval 41.3-71.9%) and observed helminths of the gastrointestinal tract were recorded: Ancylostoma caninum (33%), Toxocara canis (29%), Dipylidium caninum (6%), Capillaria spp. (3%), Trichuris vulpis (1.66%). It is important to point out that young dogs were significantly infected more frequently (p ≤ 0.1) than non-sterilized females and the higher occurrence of nematode infection occurred at the new arrival of stray dogs, in the third collection. With impact on public health, the higher prevalence (p ≤ 0.1) of T. canis in young dogs suggests the existence of real risk for human infection and demonstrate the necessity for a parasite control programme reinforcement at the municipal dog shelter. © Indian Society for Parasitology 2020.Entities:
Keywords: Animal shelters; Nematodes; Public health; Risk factors; Stray dogs
Year: 2020 PMID: 32837054 PMCID: PMC7383065 DOI: 10.1007/s12639-020-01252-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Parasit Dis ISSN: 0971-7196
Macroscopic analysis—collections qualitative results
| Collection 1 | Young dogs | SMF | NSF | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YD1 | YD2 | YD3 | YD4 | YD5 | YD6 | YD7 | SMF1 | SMF2 | SMF3 | SMF4 | SMF5 | SMF6 | SMF7 | NSF1 | NSF2 | NSF3 | NSF4 | NSF5 | NSF6 | NSF7 | |
| Consistency | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | L | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Colour | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | LB | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B |
| Composition | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
YD young dogs, SMF sterilized males and females, NSF non sterilized females, N normal, L liquid, B brown, LB Liquid brown, P pasty, UF undigested food
Microscopic analysis—quantitative results (faecal eggs count, FEC)
| Group | n | n/prevalence | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eggs (FEC) | n infected animal/prevalence | L2 | n infected animal/prevalence | Eggs (FEC) | n infected animal/prevalence | Eggs (FEC) | n infected animal/prevalence | Eggs (FEC) | n infected animal/prevalence | Eggs (FEC) | n infected animal/prevalence | |||
| YD1 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||||||||
| 57.10 | 57.10 | |||||||||||||
| YD2 | 7 | 7 | 205 | 7 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| 100 | 100 | 14.28 | ||||||||||||
| YD3 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 1146 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 95 | 1 | |||
| 86 | 18 | 43.00 | 86 | 14.30 | 14.30 | 14.30 | ||||||||
| SMF1 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | |||||||||
| 28.60 | 1 | 14.30 | 28.60 | |||||||||||
| SMF2 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||
| 57.10 | 19 | 28.60 | 28.60 | |||||||||||
| SMF3 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 100 | 3 | 223 | 2 | |||||||
| 71.40 | 4 | 14.28 | 42.84 | 28.60 | ||||||||||
| NSF1 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 1 | |||||||
| 28.60 | 33 | 14.30 | 14.30 | 14.30 | ||||||||||
| NSF2 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| 57.10 | 8 | 28.60 | 14.30 | 14.30 | ||||||||||
| NSF3 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 11 | 1 | |||||||
| 28.60 | 6 | 14.30 | 14.30 | 14.30 | ||||||||||
YD young dogs, SMF sterilized males and females, NSF non sterilized females
Fig. 1Mean parasite load (FEC), considering group and collection
Statistic mean differences (p ≤ 0.1) between collections and groups
| (i) Collection/mean (FEC) | Difference of means (I–J) | Sig. | Confidence interval 90% | (ii) Group/mean/FEC) | Difference of means (I–J) | Sig. | Confidence interval 90% | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | Lower limit | Upper limit | ||||||||||
| Dec | 10.76 | Jan | − 62.43* | 0.059 | − 126.69 | 1.84 | NSF | 3.38 | SMF | − 12.52 | 0.89 | − 68.44 | 43.39 |
| Nov | 8.62 | 0.944 | − 55.65 | 72.89 | YD | − 63.43* | 0.05 | − 119.34 | − 7.51 | ||||
| Jan | 73.19 | Dec | 62.43* | 0.059 | 1.84 | 126.7 | SMF | 15.91 | NSF | 12.52 | 0.89 | − 43.39 | 68.44 |
| Nov | 71.05* | 0.027 | 6.78 | 135.31 | YD | 50.9 | 0.15 | − 106.82 | 5.01 | ||||
| Nov | 2.14 | Dec | − 8.62 | 0.944 | − 72.89 | 55.65 | YD | 66.81 | NSF | 63.43* | 0.05 | 7.51 | 119.34 |
| Jan | − 71.05* | 0.027 | − 135.31 | − 19.3 | SMF | 50.9 | 0.15 | − 5.01 | 106.82 | ||||
*Difference of means significant on level 0.10